snowflake_cancel_query

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the query must be 'active running' but fails to mention side effects (e.g., cancellation is irreversible), error behavior for invalid IDs, or success/failure response semantics. The description is a bare action statement without operational detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and object. There is zero waste; every word is necessary. It achieves maximum conciseness without sacrificing core clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description captures the essential action. However, it omits any error handling details, prerequisites (e.g., must have a valid running query ID), or indication of where to obtain the ID from other tools. The output schema may cover return values, but the description leaves operational context vague.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It does identify query_id as the identifier for the query to cancel, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type/title. However, it doesn't provide additional details like the format or source of the ID, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('active running Snowflake query') and specifies the key parameter (Query ID). It clearly distinguishes from all siblings, none of which perform cancellation. This is an unambiguous statement of the tool's purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no contextual guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention that the query must be running, how to obtain the query ID, or that other query-related tools exist. The only implicit guidance is that cancellation is the purpose, but it offers no 'when not to use' or alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.